From the Radio Free Michigan archives ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu. ------------------------------------------------ THE UNITED NATIONS ------------------ The United Nations has set itself up to become the single most powerful organization on the planet. It already gets the Western Nations to jump when it says. How many people have been sent to Somalia (in vain) or to Boznia-Herzegovinia (again in vain) at the bidding of the UN? This doesn't even factor in the massive effort put into "Operation Desert Storm". Let us consider the _Univeral_Declaration_of_Human_Rights_ which on December 10th 1948 gave the UN unlimited power to do whatever it wishes regardless of what anyone may say to the contrary. All member nations have adopted this document as "law" and their continued committment to the UN only further reinforces their role in the UN's totalitarian scheme. Article 26 paragraph 2 ends, "and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace." This is crucial when we consider that Article 26 has specifically to do with education. The leap from education to media or information is very small. They might just as well have changed the Article to read: (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education... (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of repect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. This is not to say that on the surface it all sounds very good. The point here is that the United Nations gives itself all the decision making power. Consider Article 28: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration can be fully realized. Now turn to Article 29 subsection 3 (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. This makes the UN the only interpreter of its goals and 'principles'. So if your freedoms and rights allow you to do anything which the UN does not approve of, then you end up in violation of 'international law' or you end up committing a 'crime against humanity', much like I'm doing in writing this critique. Article 30 clarifies the UN's position. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or individual any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. In other words, nobody may question the UN or contest its 'right' to world dictatorship. Had Hitler won WWII, at least we would know where we stand; but I'm not so sure I know where we stand with the UN. It hardly seems questionable that the UN gave itself the power to pursue legal action against anyone, anywhere, for any reason. The fact remains that the _Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights_ gave the UN the authority to determine whatever it wishes to be law. The UN gets to interpret its own agenda and purpose. What happens when that purpose seems to no longer be legitimate? What happens when the UN becomes the sovereign one world government it intends to be? (I apologize for the less than academic format. I just don't have the time to prepare a better argument. I hope the message is clear and somewhat concise. I do not wish to downplay human rights here, only to point out that the UN has used this forum to legitimize whatever purpose it feels at the time. Consider Iraq with an open mind. Why was the UN iinvolved? Crimes against Humanity? or was it that some of the more influential countries in the UN stood to loose a considerable amount of money from Iraqi annexation of a small oil rich country. Certainly it wasn't anything to do with 'crimes against humanity'. If it was, why didn't they invade Cambodia when Pol Pot exterminated 2 million of his own people? Why does the UN not interfere in the extermination of the Chiapas Indians in Mexico? Just wondering about some of these things. Think happy thoughts and... if they can't get you hooked on heroin... they can get you hooked on television...) ------------------------------------------------ (This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer. All files are ZIP archives for fast download. E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)